From: OPE-L Administrator (ope-admin@ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu)
Date: Sun Jan 26 2003 - 11:39:25 EST
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Davis" <jdav@gocatgo.com> Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 11:14 AM Subject: Re: Electronics and Value (for OPE-L list) [Please consider posting this to the OPE-L list, in response to 8373. Thanks, jd] I'm not sure if I understand all of the points that Paul Adler is raising, but it seems to me that the pricing of "intellectual property" (in quotes because it's an oxymoron really, isn't it?) is not much different from any other monopoly good. The fact that (a) patents expire, erasing the state-granted monopoly protection; and (b) processes or even the good itself (for example the song or software, once rendered digitally) can easily escape and be reproduced by anyone with the wherewithal would contribute to the "brittleness" of pricing. Drug prices at the point of patent expiration might be a good case study. It certainly seems that drug company stock prices get the jitters as patent-expiration time approaches. The general dilemma I think for an economy that is (precariously) perched on a foundation of knowledge-intensive production is that once a process does escape from the discoverer or innovator, and become the new social average, the previous advantage for the innovator is erased. Michael Perelman's paper (post 8310) has some interesting takes on this. Also something from awhile ago, "Knowledge in Production", http://www.gocatgo.com/texts/kip.html jd
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 27 2003 - 00:00:01 EST